Everything you wanted to know about.. RELIGION

[Love]

I ditto blink's post.

To hopefully make this the original ask and answer topic, I have a question for Jews,

Is KILLING allowed in your religion? If not, why does Israel keep attacking Palestine and destroying it? If it's because of the Qudos (not sure what it's called in English, but you all know the yellow mosque thing) and how Israel wants it, why does it keep killing the women and children in Palestine? Is it allowed to do that in Judaism?

Sorry if it's more of a political question, but I just had it in my head for some time.

 

[Ellie]

I'm not Jewish but one of the commandments is "Thou shalt not kill"; therefore... I'd say no, it is not allowed. But it's apparently all in the interpretation. One argument that a friend said was: "It is not killing, because Muslims aren't sworn into the Jewish religion, therefore are not alive/human".

 

[Love]

I'm not Jewish but one of the commandments is "Thou shalt not kill"; therefore... I'd say no, it is not allowed. But it's apparently all in the interpretation. One argument that a friend said was: "It is not killing, because Muslims aren't sworn into the Jewish religion, therefore are not alive/human".

Err but this is cruel, right? I mean, there should be an understanding of religions, right? And I personally think that children at the very least shouldn't deserve to die like that just because they are "not alive/human" or because they are of Muslims' family. It's like saying "If you are not a Jew, you have to die." O.o

 

[Incognitus]

I'm not Jewish but one of the commandments is "Thou shalt not kill"; therefore... I'd say no, it is not allowed. But it's apparently all in the interpretation. One argument that a friend said was: "It is not killing, because Muslims aren't sworn into the Jewish religion, therefore are not alive/human".

I've heard that "Thou shalt not kill" actually means "Thou shalt not murder": Killing being a more neutral act. It was used in a context to justify the hypothetical massacre of people the person had deemed not to be "innocents"... and then later declared, as above, to have been "only tentatively human".

 

[So fist]

I'm not Jewish but one of the commandments is "Thou shalt not kill"; therefore... I'd say no, it is not allowed. But it's apparently all in the interpretation.

No its all in the language. The Hebrew phrase used in the ten commandments is akin to our concept of the crime of murder. It is not used to describe killings in war or self defense in the bible. Very recent translations have restored it from kill to murder to help on the accuracy of it but commandments are like memes so it'll take a while for that to filter through. But back to Love's question, murder is forbidden in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Murder is an important word that has important distinctions. Although all murder's are killings, not all killings are murders. Society does not view defending yourself and family from an assailant with his own intent to kill as murder. Defending your tribe or country in war or jihad isn't murder. Executing a criminal after just judicial process isn't murder. Killing someone by accident absent of malice is not murder.

Wyatt your friend is dumb. That's not even close to why.

If it's because of the Qudos (not sure what it's called in English, but you all know the yellow mosque thing) and how Israel wants it, why does it keep killing the women and children in Palestine?

:x

If you think its all about the Al Quds mosque for the past forty years... ugh we really don't need to open this can of worms here. To the latter part of your loaded question same could be asked of Hamas, Al Aqsa, and all the other bands of gangsters playing cowboys and indians in the Palestinean Territories. The only thing is with the IDF civilian deaths are unintentional collateral casualties in their pursuit of security for the state of Israel whereas with Al Aqsa and Hamas et al Israeli civilians are often the objective to kill.

The cycle of violence that has occured in the Holy land is hardly as simple as who gets Al Quds, which the Israelis are not interested in, there are a sizable bunch of them that want the Jewish holy sites that share the same neighborhood but not Al Quds. While what happens to Jerusalem is a stumbling block to peace, the lack of security and control of militants in the PA territories and the issue of settlements are by far the bigger problems. And they aren't easy to solve because they involve leaders fighting dissent within their own countries. In Palestine jihad has made many local gangsters powerful and the end of it means they actually have to do something with themselves and well they aren't looking forward to it so they resist it and look for ways to call adhering to ceasefires a betrayal of Palestine. Meanwhile just as moderate elements in the PA try and create a peaceful security situation the Israeli government has to cobble together coalitions amongst many parties with different interests and perspectives on peace with the PA. Including people like Shas who are religious right Zionists that feel entitled to settled areas, Beitanu Yisrael who want to trade land (even settlement land) to the Palestineans to obtain an agreement that keeps Jerusalem in Israel without splitting it, Likud who want to see better stability in the PA before resuming negotiations, Kadima who wants to stick to Ariel Sharon's roadmap (they decided to sit out for now hoping Netanyahu falls), and Labor are of course being lefties dovish and want to go back to Oslo. But anyway all of these interests compete and as one interest subverts the interest of another party they of course move to sabotage eachother. Shas for example despite being on the right is no friend of Beitanu Yisrael because of its land for peace platform. I could go on but I think the point is made that this is more complicated than who gets Al Quds. None of it really has a lot to do with religion even other than it takes place in or near sacred places valuable to all three major western religions. So let's end the Palestine v. Israel rants for some other thread.

 

[Love]

Oh goodness, your post just confused the hell out of me. But ok, I won't turn this into a political thread so the end is : Murder and killing is forbidden in Judaism. Thank you.

 

[So fist]

Read again that isn't what I said. Murder is forbidden, Killing is not forbidden. Killing by accident is not considered murder. Killing in defense of yourself or family isn't murder. Killing in defense of your tribe or state in war is not murder. Carrying out an execution of a justly sentenced criminal is not murder. Is that more clear?

 

[So fist]

In essence its really no different than Christianity's stance or Islam's stance on killing and murder. All emphasize the idea of willful malice and make similar contextual classifications of what constitutes unlawful murder and lawful killing. This idea prolly evolved from traditions passed from the Hittites who controlled the area long before. Their system of laws was the first to consider premeditation as a valid method of measuring the degree of a crime and determining malicious intent.

 

[Love]

Well, your first post (the one before your last) is pretty much what Islam is about, too. Makes me wonder that, if Judaism and Islam are similar in beliefs, why are they always differing?

 

[Incognitus]

Well, your first post (the one before your last) is pretty much what Islam is about, too. Makes me wonder that, if Judaism and Islam are similar in beliefs, why are they always differing?

They're not. There will always be people in any faith who fanatically disagree with all of the others, but the issues that at the forefront of everything at the moment are primarily realpolitik and real estate.

 

[Love]

True but Muslims always hate Jews and I dunno why. I mean, Muslims are friendly to everyone outside Islam and all but they don't really like Jews. I always wondered why was that, since they befriend Christians, Atheists and other religions. Is it mainly because of the Israel-Palestine thing, or some unknown reason? And do Jews feel the same way towards Muslims?

 

[Incognitus]

True but Muslims always hate Jews and I dunno why. I mean, Muslims are friendly to everyone outside Islam and all but they don't really like Jews. I always wondered why was that, since they befriend Christians, Atheists and other religions. Is it mainly because of the Israel-Palestine thing, or some unknown reason? And do Jews feel the same way towards Muslims?

It's mainly the Palestine thing. The whole "Muslims always hate Jews" thing is a myth - mostly bandied about by people who want to create a mythological "4000 years of hatred" thing to deny responsibility for the present.

You're being very sweeping here: I know plenty of Jews and Muslims who, despite being mutually devout, get on like a house on fire.

 

[GoGoGadget]

I have an honest question to any Christian who feels like answering: What are your thoughts on evolution and the age of the planet? Do you believe that the earth is really billions of years old and we evolved from primitive species? Or do you think that (as the Bible states) the earth and humans haven't been around for longer than a few thousand years?

I believe the Earth is definitely billions of years old. Even in the Bible it states God chose to build on this rock, not that he made the planet at that point.

I don't believe in evolution. It's a great concept, pretty intriguing, but the growing population of animals dying at the rate they are nowadays doesn't hold that theory true for me. Adaptable to change, yes. Evolving into new species (or at least gaining new abilities) to save themselves? Not so much. Humans, animals, and plants have an inherit intelligence integrated into their physiology, instinct, that seems to already be pre-thought out before existence. If cells were able to form into living objects naturally (without relying on manipulation via laboratories and outside properties to add non-naturally existing variables) then I would agree with evolution.

One other addition I'd like to make. Being a Christian I don't debunk science at all. As a matter of fact I feel bad for extremists on both the science and religion ends that say one can't coexist with the other. There's an important aspect to science; just because it explains HOW something works it doesn't give any answers beyond that.

For example, an RPG Maker game (This is an RPG Maker community, eh?). If I were an NPC in a game I would marvel at how awesome all 32 bits of graphics were around me. Now let's say an NPC in the RPG Maker game catches on that they found something called "coding" and it explains how they function day to day. This "coding" can answer why they move back and forth and say the same two lines to the heroes over and over, and how "coding" shows the properties of their world. But would that be an entirely accurate picture of "coding" being the answer to all the RPG Maker NPC's as to how they truly exist? Yes and no.

It's true that coding is what makes them up, but it doesn't explain that coding is only a tool in the grand scheme of things, made by a programmer who pre-thought out all aspects of their world; from the landscapes to the animals, to everything that goes along with imagination and creativity on the programmer's mind. Coding itself doesn't just happen, someone makes it. This is how I look at science. It's absolutely true that science properties exist, but beyond only explaining how things work it doesn't disprove anything, but that doesn't mean it should be ignored either.

 

[silver wind]

I'm not Jewish but one of the commandments is "Thou shalt not kill"; therefore... I'd say no, it is not allowed. But it's apparently all in the interpretation. One argument that a friend said was: "It is not killing, because Muslims aren't sworn into the Jewish religion, therefore are not alive/human".

o.o;
We're at a war, where the other side is after civilians. We are after the terrorists, and accidentally hurt civilians. We don't support killing, but if you know someone is out to get you, you have every right to kill him first.

About the 4000 year hatred, it really is a myth.
My grandmother used to shop in the Palestinian cities which are now too dangerous to jews. This is a problem of the last 50 years, no more. It wasn't always like that.
The Muslim don't get the same rights as jews here, and I can understand their anger.
However, I do think it's partly their fault- terrorism means we must close them in their cities and they can't work, and we bomb their cities, etc. If they fought those terrorists instead of electing(!!) them, the killing cycle would stop almost immediately. It's not us who educate our kids to murder innocent civilians.
Even if they deserve to get independence, they lost it by their own actions.

this is what i don't get with christianity: if G-d is real how did he come into existence i mean he couldnt of been there forever

Like I said, If He created time, he can exist without it. If you don't age, you don't have to be created.. If I as a human can live up to 120, it means I was created at some point in time: 120 years ago or before that. If someone is timeless, above time, he doesn't have to be created, he is the CREATOR of all the creatures. If he was created, someone else would be the creator, not him.

 

[dadevvtsvre]

I don't believe in evolution. It's a great concept, pretty intriguing, but the growing population of animals dying at the rate they are nowadays doesn't hold that theory true for me. Adaptable to change, yes. Evolving into new species (or at least gaining new abilities) to save themselves? Not so much.

You do realize that evolution is a process that takes thousands, even millions of years, right? The number of species that are going extinct has only dramatically increased within the past century or so and that's not nearly long enough for species to start evolving and adapting into new ways to survive.

 

[GoGoGadget]

You do realize that evolution is a process that takes thousands, even millions of years, right? The number of species that are going extinct has only dramatically increased within the past century or so and that's not nearly long enough for species to start evolving and adapting into new ways to survive.

I see. If the human race is wiped from a natural disaster hundreds or thousands of years from now will the process start for humans to be created again or is this the only time for humans to live?

I have an honest question for anyone who believes this is the only life. Why live by any moral standard? Why follow rules? If life is only a good 50-80 years then why not make the most of it and do whatever you can to gain the most amount of power and wealth? What do you have to gain by not doing whatever you want knowing you will never have a second opportunity to live again?

 

[Zelfouz]

I have an honest question for anyone who believes this is the only life. Why live by any moral standard? Why follow rules? If life is only a good 50-80 years then why not make the most of it and do whatever you can to gain the most amount of power and wealth? What do you have to gain by not doing whatever you want knowing you will never have a second opportunity to live again?

As a society, we have certain agreements in place that are necessary for everyone's happiness and survival. I don't want to be murdered, stolen from, assaulted, or any other number of negative things, so I agree to abide by the rules of society that prohibit anyone from doing these to anyone else.

In addition to this, while I do not believe there is a god to answer to, I definitely have to answer to myself. An unethical person who stops at nothing for personal gain, even at the expense of others, is not the sort of person I want to be. What I have to gain by not doing anything I want at the expense of others is my dignity.

Also, power and wealth aren't the only things in life worth pursuing. I don't do whatever I can to gain as much power and wealth as possible because I don't care about power or wealth. I'd rather have a fulfilling life full of good friends and fun adventures. That is what makes me happy, so that is what I pursue.

 

[So fist]

GoGo,

First evolution is a long process that occurs as said previously tens of thousands to millions of years. Man for the last five hundred years has developed a knack for radically changing the habitats for species across the planet, and its only been about the past hundred of those years that man has actually begun to consider that they might want to actually give a shit about that impact.

The second question implies that the process has somehow stopped. However for another intelligent species to arise it would take a lot of time. Early man doesn't show up until after there had been life on the planet for over two billion years. Its a rare set of circumstances and adaptations (opposable thumb and toolmaking behaviors) that leads to higher forms of intelligence. What we know as modern man wasn't the only branch to make it to that stage. It was the only one that survived the tests of the environment and time.

 

[silver wind]

Science says: Our world exists for 4.5 billion years
Fossils of basic life forms have been dated to 3.8 billion years ago. Therefore it is now believed that life had a 'window' of 500 million years to develop (I dunno how they calculated that, because 4.5 - 3.8 = 0.7...).
That's a big number: 500,000,000
Life could have been created as an accident from simple materials, right?
Let's use a scientific tool: Statistics. what is the chance of getting a set of 52 cards in a certain order?
52 x 51 x 50 x 49 x 48...........x 3 x 2 x 1
I stopped calculating at 30, and it's already a chance of 1 to
265252859812191058636308480 million
This is for 52 cards at a certain order. Do you know how many 'letters' are in your DNA? A few 3 billion, so I heard.
Even the most simple bacteria has DNA!
Not only that but, when that bacteria was created, the conditions for existence of life were already there: liquid water, the right distance from the sun, a moon orbiting around earth, an atmosphere. when something like a DNA happens, on accident, exactly when and where it can survive ( and within a window of 500 million years), you know what I call it?
A miracle.

I'm really getting off topic, but I have a question to those believing in the Evolution 'religion' :
1) You believe fish evolved into lizards, and there have been thousands of 'middle stages'. Where are they? One ancient fish (Latimeria, I think) was claimed to be the link, but later discovered to be a species still alive today, which DOES NOT have legs and hands like previously said.
2) You believe lizards evolved into birds, with thousands of middle stages. Where are they? You found a single creature called Archeopetrix and presented it as the link, but today scientists claim it was a bird, like in our time: warm blood, light-weight skeleton, beak, etc. Not half lizard half bird.
3) You believe human evolved from monkeys, with thousands of middle stages. Not a single whole skeleton of 'man-ape' was found. Only one tooth here, one broken skull cup there. Once a whole species of 'man -apes' was created on a single tooth, later they discovered it was a tooth of a pig..
65 million year old dinosaur skeletons where found by thousands. But a single skeleton of 4 million year old 'man-ape' ? Nope.
A single skeleton of fish-lizard? Nope.
a single skeleton of lizard-bird? Nope.
....
Like I said, Evolution is a religion, nothing more. A belief. A theory.

 

[Ellie]

Like I said, Evolution is a religion, nothing more. A belief. A theory.

That it may be, but you are very happy to believe your religion and argue for it; don't be a hypocrit.


There's a 1:gazillion chance of life occuring, right?

That still means there is a chance. And, it obviously did happen. Just because something is unlikely doesn't mean it can't (or won't) happen.



I do not believe the evolution "religion". I stand by it because it is the current most likely theory. I don't believe it to be 100% true, but all the same I am very interested in the people who are testing the theory (note: testing, not believing) because if it does turn out to be true then it is worth finding out. Exactly the same as all religions would be a lot more interesting ifpeople actually tested thosae religions to try and find out the truth. We shouldn't be "believing" in things, we should be finding out for ourselves whether they are true or not. That's why I find science so interesting. Nobody in science claims to have the answer. Nobody (should) believe anything science, or indeed religion, has to say, because as you said, they are theories, and theories exist to be tested and proven or disproven.

1) You believe fish evolved into lizards, and there have been thousands of 'middle stages'. Where are they? One ancient fish (Litemeria, I think) was claimed to be the link, but later discovered to be a species still alive today, which DOES NOT have legs and hands like previously said.
2) You believe lizards evolved into birds, with thousands of middle stages. Where are they? You found a single creature called Archeopetrix and presented it as the link, but today scientists claim it was a bird, like in our time: warm blood, light-weight skeleton, beak, etc. Not half lizard half bird.
3) You believe human evolved from monkeys, with thousands of middle stages. Not a single whole skeleton of 'man-ape' was found. Only one tooth here, one broken skull cup there. Once a whole species of 'man -apes' was created on a single tooth, later they discovered it was a tooth of a pig..
65 million year old dinosaur skeletons where found by thousands. But a single skeleton of 4 million year old 'man-ape' ? Nope.
A single skeleton of fish-lizard? Nope.
a single skeleton of lizard-bird? Nope.

Can you give sources, please? I'd like to know where you heard all this, since from the programs I've seen and magazines I've read there is plenty of evidence, including bones. I, like you, don't have sources, hence I would like to know the true facts before answering these questions.


Scientists do not believe that fish turned into lizards. Scientists are trying to find out if fish turned into lizards. Scientists do not believe that lizards turned into birds. Scientists are trying to find out if lizards "turned into" birds.